The persecution of ex-Muslims, even in non-Muslim countries, is truly disgusting.
The deadly hatred directed at apostates by Islamists and pious Musliims is proof that their ideology is toxic. twitter.com/AtheistRepubli…

That is what Christian fanatics have in common with Islamists: the unshakable conviction of having god on their side, which makes them absolutely irrational and intransigent. twitter.com/AtheistRepubli…

To oppose ALL bans on religious symbols or face-coverings, anywhere and everywhere, is dogmatic and irrational. In particular, banning face-coverings in the public service is a perfectly reasonable and indeed necessary measure to take. @SarahTheHaideratheology.ca/blog-089/

I agree completely with Ayaan Hirsi Ali.
The suggestion made by the bozo from the Irish Islamic Cultural Centre is an outrage. Should we legalize stoning, "honour" killing and slavery as well? Disgusting. twitter.com/Ayaan/status/9…

The story of Mme Fatima Houda-Pepin, a secular Muslim, is probably not well-known outside Quebec. It deserves to be.

Madame Fatima Houda-Pepin was a Member of National Assembly (MNA) for the Quebec Liberal Party (QLP), first elected in 1994. When in 2013 the Parti Québécois government proposed its Charter of Secularism (the oft-used name “Charter of Values” is a misnomer, being only the preliminary name before the draft bill was published), Mme Houda-Pepin, like her party, opposed it. However, that is not the end of our story. It is only the beginning. Because Mme Houda-Pepin’s position on the subject of secularism was nevertheless very different from that of her party.

“All State personnel are imposed a duty of religious neutrality in the exercise of their functions. Persons in authority with the power to coerce, such as judges, prosecutors, police officers and correctional officers, are prohibited from wearing conspicuous religious symbols in the exercise of their functions.”

“State personnel are prohibited from wearing a chador, a niqab or a burka.”

“The bill requires that State services be provided and received with an uncovered face, except in cases of occupational necessity or for health or safety reasons.”

“the Premier is also required to create, by legislative or regulatory means, a centre dedicated to action research on religious fundamentalism and its impact on democracy, human rights and youth rights.”

… if Couillard really cared about the issue of religious accommodation, … he would have made overtures to the Parti Québécois to negotiate some kind of compromise between the PQ’s Charter and Houda-Pepin’s proposed bill.

If the leadership of the QLP had had some modicum of political integrity, if its leader Philippe Couillard really cared about the issue of so-called “reasonable accommodation”–i.e. religious accommodation–which was causing such upheaval in Quebec, he would have welcomed Draft Bill 491 and, furthermore, would have made overtures to the Parti Québécois to negotiate some kind of compromise between the PQ’s Charter and Houda-Pepin’s proposed bill. But Couillard and the QLP did no such thing. Instead they rejected her bill and expelled her from the caucus. Mme Houda-Pepin henceforth sat as an independent in the National Assembly.

In the Quebec election of April 2014, the Parti Québécois abstained from running a candidate in the riding La Pinière, instead directing its supporters to vote for Houda-Pepin. The Liberal Party parachuted a high-profile candidate Gaétan Barrette into the riding. He defeated Houda-Pepin, was named Minister of Health in the newly elected Liberal government and has since been playing havoc with Quebec’s health-care system with widespread austerity measures.

Now fast forward to January of 2017. A horrific mass murder occurs in a Quebec City mosque. The perpetrator is a non-Muslim. There is widespread condemnation of this terrible act, including of course from those who support secularism and who criticize religion regularly (such as myself) because, for one thing, such gratuitous, murderous violence can never be justified, and, furthermore, it will only play into the hands of Islamist fundamentalists by giving them a pretext to further their program, especially since one of their favourite strategies is playing the victim. Nothing good can come of such horror.

And that is indeed what happened. Almost immediately, unscrupulous politicians and others started slandering secularists by claiming that their support for the PQ’s Charter of Secularism somehow helped cause the Quebec City shooting. This chorus of voices was joined by a certain Charles Taylor who had been co-chair of the famous Bouchard-Taylor Commission which, a decade ago, was mandated to study the controversial issue of religious accommodation. One of the principal recommendations of that Commission was very similar to one of the main provisions of Houda-Pepin’s proposed Bill 491: a ban on religious symbols for public servants in positions of coercive authority. Taylor now repudiates that recommendation, saying that no such ban should be implemented, and he claims that the Quebec City mosque shooting led him to that change of heart.

But Taylor is being less than truthful, and it is Fatima Houda-Pepin who set the record straight for us. She revealed that Taylor had discreetly repudiated the recommendation years ago, at around the time she presented her Draft Bill 491. Indeed, shortly before Houda-Pepin was expelled from the Liberal caucus, Premier Couillard forbade her from discussing her proposed legislation with the caucus. To underline his rejection of any ban on religious symbols, Couillard revealed that Taylor as well was ready to reject such a ban.

Taylor … did not have a change of heart because of the mosque shooting. On the contrary, he cynically exploited that tragic event as an excuse to rationalize a decision he had made years before.

Thus, thanks to Fatima Houda-Pepin, we now know that Taylor’s recent behaviour was at best disingenuous, and arguably dishonest. He did not have a change of heart because of the mosque shooting. On the contrary, he cynically exploited that tragic event as an excuse to rationalize a decision he had made years before.

Taylor has thus thoroughly undermined the recommendations of the Bouchard-Taylor Commission, although the other co-president of the Commission, Gerald Bouchard, has not changed his position. Subsequently, Couillard has opportunistically used Taylor’s about-face to justify an intransigent attitude towards any consideration of a ban on religious symbols worn by public servants, even by those with coercive authority. The premier has rejected any possibility of compromise with the two opposition parties on that issue.

A law against sharia – an archaic and regressive set of tribal customs fourteen centuries old – is now part of our Quebec values. http://ici.radio-canada.ca/nouvelles/Politique/nouvelles/200505/26/002-Charia-Assemblee-Nat.shtml
There is no doubt that, as a woman and as a muslim, Ms Houda-Pepin knew and knows million times more the adverse impacts of sharia on women than this naive – and maybe ignorant – Taylor.
As you reminded in your blog, she lost her seat as an MNA. During the run, her former PLQ colleagues convinced the muslim electorate of her county that she was not a good muslim (evidenced by her will to ban sharia law in Qc laws) and should not re-elect her. She lost her seat with honor but the winners should be covered in shame.
Mme Fatima, of a Moroccan and a pious origin and still a muslim believer, is, by the way, a significant positive example – but unfortunately a too scarce case – of the islamic updated faith being compatible with a democratic, secular, progressive and feminist society and a case of an immigrant usefully joining us to keep on building a better society. She is in fact faithful to the historic legacy of the party that expelled her. Noteworthy to also remind that she has never been suspected of any corruption wrongdoing during the almost 20 years she was MNA, also a scarce case in the party which expelled her.

Gilbert

“Islam makes very large claims for itself. In its art, there is a prejudice against representing the human form at all. The prohibition on picturing the prophet – who was only another male mammal – is apparently absolute. So is the prohibition on pork or alcohol or, in some Muslim societies, music or dancing. Very well then, let a good Muslim abstain rigorously from all these. But if he claims the right to make me abstain as well, he offers the clearest possible warning and proof of an aggressive intent.” Chr. Hitchens

Common sense tells any normal human being that the Christian story is just bunch of stupid little lies. The problem has always been that it didn’t stop there and the fault lies with whomever didn’t and still doesn’t stop it. Christians who preach their ridiculous nonsense to you are just trying to see if they can disrespect you and get away with it. In the first place I don’t ever want to have to listen to such idiotic lies, I have better things to do. It isn’t my duty as a human being to protect other human beings who disrespect me, it’s my duty to myself and to people like me to punish them.

The only reason I keep an open mind is because if I don’t I might miss something important to my survival and well being.
I know about the Christian criminal gang and how they victimize people who don’t oppose them. For me the Muslim religion has always been something far away and out of mind up until recently. Whether it is something like Christianity which is based on disrespect for people like me I don’t yet know for certain.